create_text_frame

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a text frame' without indicating any side effects (e.g., current page placement, whether it replaces existing frames, return values, or error conditions). This is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about important behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Create a text frame') and adds a qualifier ('advanced formatting options'). It is concise with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more detailed without becoming bloated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 13 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what happens after creation, how the frame is placed on a page, whether it interacts with the currently active page, or what the response will contain. This level of detail is insufficient for an AI agent to safely invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 92%, with most parameters well-documented (x, y, width, height, content, fontSize, etc.). The description adds only a vague 'advanced formatting options' phrase that does not provide specific syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('text frame'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like edit_text_frame, create_rectangle, and create_ellipse. 'Advanced formatting options' hints at richer capabilities without obscuring the core function.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the name and description - it's for creating a new text frame. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., edit_text_frame for modifying, or other create_* tools), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.